Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread - Page 81 - Politics and Economics

TomVeil- Could you elaborate on what President Ron Paul would do to make the states "foot the bill" for their current prohibition of cocaine possession?

Quote:

Originally Posted by leavesofliberty

yeah, you could substitute Ron Paul for any contemporary politician, and say that they want black people to be in jail because they don't have the powers to end the war on drugs overnight

You mean like earlier in this thread when multiple Ron Paul supporters tried to hilariously claim Barack Obama is more racist than Ron Paul? Yeah, that was silly of them.

I mean, do I really have to explain the trap I set here? It's no fun if you guys aren't even self-aware enough to realize what just happened.

08-02-2011 , 08:16 PM

#2002

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

cool story bro

08-02-2011 , 08:39 PM

#2003

FallsviewPokerPro

banned

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 2,477

Barack OBama is racist. He supports anti-negro policies like the minimum wage.

08-02-2011 , 08:41 PM

#2004

FallsviewPokerPro

banned

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 2,477

And he routinely murders Pakistani children with unmanned predator drones. Personally, I think he might have been picked on by the other kids for being white during his terrorist training at the madrassa schools and now he's coming back for revenge.

08-02-2011 , 08:41 PM

#2005

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

See?

08-02-2011 , 08:44 PM

#2006

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

See?

he does harm a lot of brownies. you must admit. I don't think it's racially motivated though. he's just an idiot.

08-02-2011 , 08:45 PM

#2007

TomVeil

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,374

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

TomVeil- Could you elaborate on what President Ron Paul would do to make the states "foot the bill" for their current prohibition of cocaine possession?

Stop federal funding.

Quote:

the 2011 budget, which indicates that the federal government will spend at least $23.44 billion on the War on Drugs in 2011.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/...ec_summary.pdf

08-02-2011 , 08:53 PM

#2008

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Uh, that link says $15.5 billion, and only $4 billion is for domestic law enforcement, and that includes federal level agencies.

08-02-2011 , 08:58 PM

#2009

TomVeil

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,374

Quote:

It's important to note that after a 2003 federal budget calling for more than $19.2 billion dollars for the War on Drugs kindled a significant public outcry, the Bush White House decided that they had to down-play how much the government was wasting on the failed War on Drugs. So in February of 2002, the same month that the White House issued the FY 2003 Drug War budget, they revised the drug budget structure, effectively hiding a significant portion of future Drug War costs in other areas of the budget. The result was as follows.

The FY 2003 federal drug control budget called for $19.2 Billion for drug control spending. The FY 2004 federal drug control budget called for only $11.7 billion, yet called it an increase of $440.3 million over the President's FY 2003 request of $11.2 billion. Notice the difference?

The president's FY 2003 budget actually "requested" $19.2 billion, yet the FY 2004 budget "claims" that only $11.2 billion was "requested" in 2003. Hmmm? By just "saying" that they requested less money for the Drug War, than they really spent in the previous year, they magically make $8 billion in real drug war funding disappear into other areas of the budget. Can you say, "spin"?

Since the budget items that were moved off of the drug control budget were costs that were definitely related to the War on Drugs (such as travel expenses for DEA agents), we had to come up with a reasonable means to get those numbers back into the total. So that you may understand the validity of our numbers, here is what we've done.

We started with the accurate $19.2 billion, requested in the FY 2003 budget and calculated the difference between that number and the number that the 2004 drug control budget "claimed" was requested in 2003 ($19.18B - $11.24B = 7.94B). We then added that $7.94B back into the 2004 requested amount. Then, to be even more conservative, when the government later stated that they used $19 million less than expected, in 2003, we subtracted that number from the earlier calculated difference and recalculated the 2004 total. I know that was not necessary, but being that conservative with the number, makes arguing against our number even more difficult.

From that point forward, we simply added the stated annual actual increase to the previous year's total, to get the current years's total. The last year is always that year's "requested" amount, until the next year's budget gives us an "actual" amount.

For 2011, the federal portion of the Drug War budget will amount to
$23.44 billion.

You must realize that we have no way of knowing just how much the cost of the items that were removed from the drug control budget have increased. But, since the cost of everything has increased, we know that those costs have also increased. However, since we have no way of knowing what those increases amount to and we do not want to be accused of injecting our own bias, we have once again, taken a conservative, no-growth assumption on those costs, in our calculations. If we were to be able to determine the actual growth of those other costs and include them, the Drug War Cost Clock would certainly tick at a much faster rate.

08-02-2011 , 08:59 PM

#2010

DMACM

banned

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,917

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

You mean like earlier in this thread when multiple Ron Paul supporters tried to hilariously claim Barack Obama is more racist than Ron Paul? Yeah, that was silly of them.

LOL. They really did?

08-02-2011 , 09:06 PM

#2011

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Tom- OK, so you're like obviously quoting something, but you provided a link to something else?

So $500 M a year per state is the breakpoint where states are gonna be like "OH YEAH THIS IS A DUMB IDEA"?

Like you're kinda missing the point. If we get to give Ron Paul "End the Drug War" credit because of his rhetoric, I guess we get to give Barack Obama "Closing Gitmo" and "Ending Iraq" credit?

08-02-2011 , 09:10 PM

#2012

TomVeil

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,374

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Considering many states are already relaxing their drug policies, I would imagine the loss of free federal money would make them rethink their positions, yes.

Quote:

Like you're kinda missing the point. If we get to give Ron Paul "End the Drug War" credit because of his rhetoric, I guess we get to give Barack Obama "Closing Gitmo" and "Ending Iraq" credit?

When those things happen I'll give him the credit, yes.

08-02-2011 , 09:43 PM

#2013

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Does that qualify as "Ending the Drug War"?

Oh wow, applying this standard ("complete success or else we get to declare total failure!") to other politicians has EXCITING IMPLICATIONS!

08-03-2011 , 02:37 AM

#2014

Fermion5

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 8,381

RP speech in Davenport, Iowa 8/2/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvuzlijfFhs

RP local news report about his speech in Davenport, Iowa 8/2/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg5R8pFKMiM

08-03-2011 , 02:40 AM

#2015

Fermion5

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 8,381

National Review: Ron Paul, Ames contender (8/2/11)
National Review warns that Ron could win the Ames, Iowa, straw poll, or do so well that it would be seen as a victory.

08-03-2011 , 02:40 AM

#2016

TomVeil

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,374

Ron Paul 2012 - Save Social Security!

08-03-2011 , 06:37 AM

#2017

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,586

"veteran congressman", formerly "fringe"

08-03-2011 , 12:58 PM

#2018

Max Raker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by tannenj

do you think ron paul believes in libertarian principles?

I actually don't think he really does. He seems to believe more in his view of the constitution and states rights than any libertarian principles. Which is why he thought that judges were wrong in striking down the Texas sodomy ban, something that anybody committed to libertarian principles would agree with.

08-03-2011 , 02:12 PM

#2019

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Ron Paul believes in paleoconservative principles, which Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard have told you are libertarian. But they are neo-Confederate dip****s with a combined IQ of like 175, so I'm not going to let them define any terms.

08-03-2011 , 02:16 PM

#2020

kowboykiller

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 893

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phone Booth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

No state action can invalidate the Constitution or Federal laws.

Where was the law saying it was illegal to secede?

08-03-2011 , 02:36 PM

#2021

kowboykiller

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 893

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phone Booth

You're quite unfairly trashing the unbelievable amount of effort I put into making my simple theory understandable to laymen, despite hostile and bad-faith questioning from others.

So, Booth, you're saying you're smart as ****, then????

08-03-2011 , 05:10 PM

#2022

Fermion5

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 8,381

Ron Paul & The Judge On Cavuto Talking About 'Super Congress' (8/3/11)

Last edited by Fermion5; 08-03-2011 at 05:39 PM.

08-03-2011 , 06:02 PM

#2023

ASPoker8

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 22,836

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phone Booth

I'll be happy to discuss policy but there are few here that are well-informed on the real power structure of government, the extent of presidential powers, especially as it pertains to specialized bureaucracies like the CIA, the FBI, the military, the Federal Reserve, etc, political repercussions (domestic and international) of various policies, etc. I've spent a lot of time discussing the role of money, federal reserve, etc - but unfortunately I haven't seen a single person here who understands simple, mechanical aspects of money creation that supports Ron Paul.

Most of you Ron Paul supporters are quite uninformed on policy matters (like many others) and have no ability to distinguish between genuine policy discussion (used to enact and determine policy) and political rhetoric (used to sell policy to uninformed public). Ron Paul does not distinguish either because he completely gave up on governing and uses his entire political capital to score rhetorical points. I understand that this makes him look "principled" at times, but only by entirely shirking his responsibility to govern. Others have to compromise and make decisions that are difficult to explain to their constituents. Rhetoric is constrained by the requirement that it be simple enough for average people to understand. Policy isn't. Are you guys qualified to be on the board of a multinational company and discuss its strategy? The US government is quite a bit more difficult to run.

It's like you guys are so disgusted with political theatre (which exists to explain things to uninformed people like yourselves) that you now prefer a candidate who completely assumed the character he's supposed to play, instead of other candidates who operate in reality most of the time, while playing politics some of the other times.

So in conclusion:
-You believe are much smarter than everyone
-You appeal to your own authority a bunch
-You write a bunch of words that are overall pretty dumb

Unfortunately those tasked with judging whether you are trolling or not are the same who misspell simple words during their ego trips.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMACM

Pb,
Shirking responsibility?

Quote:

Originally Posted by snagglepuss

dan,

you are wrong. also, your tone is crazy condescending so why do you expect someone to have an intellectual dialogue with you? also, maybe you are racist against white people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMACM

I do think that phone booth account might be an experiment/joke in that it spits out all this intellectual fraud but doesn't try to he comprehensible or make sense. I've said this before. You think nobody understands the extent of presidential powers? Fine but why the elaborate post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallsviewPokerPro

Am I mistaken or was that just one long rambling appeal to authority by Phone Booth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tannenj

in any case, i apologize for engaging him, but wtf do you call this?

if that is rational/meant to promote rational discussion, i will eat my hat and retire from this thread. it is not, and it is laughably condescending to boot.

Last edited by ASPoker8; 08-03-2011 at 06:07 PM.